Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason the employer is ordering you to follow law, is if you do not, and keep track of the days you work without a break, the company can be given a big fine and made pay you a large settlement. You are breaking the law, and the company can get big fines over it.
I have seen this problem for companies cost them a lot of money. Their attorneys tell them to make sure you take your break to protect themselves.
Yes you can be fired if you do not take your break, as you are violating the law, and putting the company at risk. If I was your manager now you have had your warning, if you do not follow the orders and obey the law you would be fired the first time you did this. I would be doing it to protect the company no matter how good an employee you are otherwise.
Yes. If you are not sticking to your assigned schedule, you can easily be written up or fired for insubordination, however silly it may seem to you.
In CA (and most of the rest of the US), labor laws are very strict and typically favor the employee. State law requires that your employer dismiss you for [at least] a 30 minute lunch break after working 5 hours. This is regardless of if the employee wants to or not.
Your boss is protecting himself and the company. And the State law is protecting you. Best to follow your schedule.
Your interpretation isn't quite exact.
The law states only that they are entitled to the breaks and must take them. The law does not specify where in the work period the break itself must be taken.
If you work over 5 hours, you must have a 30 minute break. It doesn't state that your 30 minute break must be paid, unpaid or taken in the 5th hour.
So if the employer and employee agree for the break to be taken in the second half of the 7th hour, that would be acceptable.
However, the employer would be well within their rights to insist for all employees that the break be taken between the 3rd and 5th hour.
The idea is reasonableness with flexibility for the job demands. My current employer and bargaining unit made it part of the agreement that lunch is between the 3rd and 5th hour regardless if you're working 8 or 10 hours. They came to that agreement to meet the legal requirements and to keep the work flow uninterrupted.
I have never understand why some people are resistant to taking a lunch break when instructed too, especially when the time is reasonable (ie; not 15 minutes after your shirt starts). When I was handling unemployment hearing, I handled a case where a shop manager was fired from a tire shop after, despite numerous warnings, he continued to refuse to take his lunch within the designated period. Apparently, he thought he was doing the company a favor by working through it. Kind of like the lady in another case who kept coming in on the weekend and working off the clock, despite being told not to. For the most part, when you are at work, your job is to do as the employer instructs. If it is not unreasonable, then you probably should just do it despite your belief there may be a better way.
Our hourly workers have nine-hours shifts, with the expectation that they will take two 15-minute breaks and one 30-minute lunch. This is explained to all new employees; they do not have the option of working straight through and leaving after eight hours.
I punched in @ 7:54 am,punched out for lunch at 1:00pm (6 minutes after the 5 hour deadline ). I work a 8 hour shift. I was told I will be written up for it because of the overtime--is it legal? I told
Them They don't have to pay me for the overtime--they said no--that can't be done--are they right?
What overtime? Isn't overtime time worked past 8 hours or even 40 hours in a week?
At my place of employment in CA, we can work straight through and take our "lunch" at the end. I work at 7:00 a.m., and can be off work at 2:30 p.m.
That's technically a violation. They must pay you for one hour of time if you fail to take a lunch break by the end of the 5th hour worked.
Quote:
I punched in @ 7:54 am,punched out for lunch at 1:00pm (6 minutes after the 5 hour deadline ). I work a 8 hour shift. I was told I will be written up for it because of the overtime--is it legal? I told
Them They don't have to pay me for the overtime--they said no--that can't be done--are they right?
Yes, they are correct. OT cannot be waived for non-exempt employees and you placed them at risk by not clocking in out in time. Your employer is well within their rights to bring disciplinary action, up to and including termination, for your disregard of internal policy and labor law.
CA is a total nightmare for both employers and employees in this regard.
Doesn't matter. I used to have to deal with this on a daily basis in CA before changing job positions. 4.99+ hours with no lunch and two things happen -- one, the employee gets an extra hour of pay added to cover lunch, and two, the employee and their manager get an angry email from someone higher up. I literally would have to pull people off phone calls if I knew they were hitting the 5 hour mark consistently. I believe there is a provision that states that there must be a second break if an employee works as 12 hour shift, no later than the 10 hour mark, but I may be off there -- we didn't have anyone working longer than eight hour shifts, just something I seem to recall.
As has been mentioned an employee can sign off on this and waive their right to it. I don't know if an employer can "make" you do that or not (i.e. you can't take the job without waiving it) as we never gave anyone the option to waive it.
I would have to imagine that anyone manipulating time cards to avoid paying OT would be in trouble.
Can I get written up or fired for not taking my lunch EXACTLY after working 5 hours? My boss is really hung up right now on going to lunch no later than 5 hours of working. We all have our scheduled lunches and no one goes 6 or 7 hours after starting work. He's harping on going a little late to lunch or 5 1/2 hours. Can we get written up or fired for that??
Depends on the company Walmart had "501's" which was for clocking out for lunch 1 minute after 5 hours (or later) and that was a write up and after so many, you'd be fired...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
